1.

) NO, The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy
in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party. The provision, when taken in its proper context,
as a whole, irresistibly conveys the idea that habeas data is a protection against unlawful
acts or omissions of public officials and of private individuals or entities engaged in
gathering, collecting, or storing data about the aggrieved party and his or her
correspondences, or about his or her family. Such individual or entity need not be in the
business of collecting or storing data. To “engage” in something is different from
undertaking a business endeavor. To “engage” means “to do or take part in something.”
It does not necessarily mean that the activity must be done in pursuit of a business. What
matters is that the person or entity must be gathering, collecting or storing said data or
information about the aggrieved party or his or her family. Whether such undertaking
carries the element of regularity, as when one pursues a business, and is in the nature of
a personal Endeavour, for any other reason or even for no reason at all, is immaterial and
such will not prevent the writ from getting to said person or entity. to agree with the
argument of the petitioners, would mean unduly limiting the reach of the writ to a very
small group, i.e., private persons and entities whose business is data gathering and
storage, and in the process decreasing the effectiveness of the writ as an instrument
designed to protect a right which is easily violated in view of rapid advancements in the
information and communications technology––a right which a great majority of the users
of technology themselves are not capable of protecting. adrianantazo.wordpress.com

2.) No, the respondents failed to established that the uploading or showing the photos to
Tigol constitute a violation of their privacy. the showing of the said photo to Tigol
disproves their allegation that the photos were viewable only by the five of them. Without
any evidence to corroborate their statement that the images were visible only to the five
of them, and without their challenging Escudero’s claim that the other students were able
to view the photos, their statements are, at best, self-serving, thus deserving scant
consideration. adrianantazo.wordpress.com

REPORT THIS AD

It is well to note that not one of petitioners disputed Escudero’s sworn account that her
students, who are the minors’ Facebook “friends,” showed her the photos using their own
Facebook accounts. This only goes to show that no special means to be able to viewthe
allegedly private posts were ever resorted to by Escudero’s students, and that it is
reasonable to assume, therefore, that the photos were, in reality, viewable either by (1)
their Facebook friends, or (2) by the public at large. Considering that the default setting
for Facebook posts is “Public,” it can be surmised that the photographs in question were
viewable to everyone on Facebook, absent any proof that petitioners’ children positively
limited the disclosure of the photograph. If such were the case, they cannot invoke the
protection attached to the right to informational privacy. That the photos are viewable by
“friends only” does not necessarily bolster the petitioners’ contention. It is well to
emphasize at this point that setting a post’s or profile detail’s privacy to “Friends” is no
assurance that it can no longer be viewed by another user who is not Facebook friends
with the source of the content. The user’s own Facebook friend can share said content or
tag his or her own Facebook friend thereto, regardless of whether the user tagged by the
latter is Facebook friends or not with the former. Also, when the post is shared or when a
person is tagged, the respective Facebook friends of the person who shared the post or
who was tagged can view the post, the privacy setting of which was set at “Friends.” a